The EU Copyright Directive is about to make the internet worse for almost everyone
What you need to know about the European 'link tax' and 'upload filter.'
The European Union's new Copyright Directive stands to dramatically change the way we consume news and other online content. Although originally intended to ensure creators and news organizations are fairly compensated for their work, the directive will more likely make quality news harder to find, throw financial and technical roadblocks in the way of smaller online publishers and creators, stifle free speech and negatively impact internet culture.
The directive is currently in the late stages of closed-door negotiations between the European Commission, European Parliament and European Council before being put to a vote of EU member nations. If passed as-is, it'll be a major change to the balance of power around online copyright. The ripples from the EU CD are likely to be felt even outside the EU's borders -- in areas as serious as major news coverage, and as silly as the memes we see on Twitter and Facebook.
The directive is supported by some European publishing giants and major record labels and musicians like Paul McCartney. But it's faced growing opposition from tech giants, social networks and online content creators, as well as campaign groups like the EFF and academics like world wide web inventor Tim Berners-Lee.
The main controversy centers on Articles 11 and 13 of the directive, also known as the "link tax" and "upload filter" requirements.
The Link Tax
Article 11 requires online news aggregators like Google, Facebook or Twitter to pay licensing fees to news organizations when showing snippets of their coverage, and forces news organizations to charge these fees. The goal is to compensate cash-strapped news publishers for the parts of their articles being used in places like Google News, where you might see an image and short summary alongside the headline. The argument from big publishers is that Google and others are cashing in on their content by showing links and snippets on "monetized platforms," and they want a slice of the action.
On the other hand, the idea that a reader would skim past a snippet where otherwise they'd click and read the entire story is at best contentious. What's more, the EU CD requires a "non-waivable" licensing fee, meaning smaller publishers in need of extra visibility of aggregators like Google can't simply charge a link fee of zero.
As reported by SearchEngineLand, a similar law enacted in Spain in 2015 went pretty badly for all concerned, ultimately resulting in Google News being shuttered entirely in that country.
Google recently published an example of how Google News might look in a post-Article 11 world -- in essence, a search results page that at first glance appears to be broken. No extended headlines. No thumbnails. No snippets.
In December the company's VP of news, Richard Gingras, highlighted further issues for small publishers, who'd be required to enter into complex commercial agreements with individual aggregators in order to compete for online attention.
It's also not clear where the line would be drawn between a snippet, which would be subject to the link tax, and a simple hyperlink, which wouldn't. Aggregators would likely err on the side of caution, lest they end up in court.
As a test case for what Article 11 might mean for publishers, Ars Technica reported in 2015 that when Spain's similar news aggregator tax came into force, smaller outlets in particular suffered a 14 percent drop in traffic, with some local services going out of business altogether.
The Upload Filter
Article 13 of the EU CD is even more problematic and far-reaching. It makes sites hosting user-created content, like YouTube, Twitter and countless others, liable for copyright infringement on their platforms. They're on the hook, and could be sued in the EU by rights holders like movie studios and TV networks for things uploaded by their users. As such, they'd be required to proactively police their platforms for copyright infringement. That means things like memes including anything copyrighted (in other words, most memes), or screengrabs taken from a movie or TV show would need to be filtered before the content is published online.
Since EU law includes no fair use provision -- in contrast to the U.S. -- this could be extended to include footage of movies, TV shows and games used in critique and commentary.
Protecting against legitimate copyright infringement is important. Equally though, something as draconian as Article 13 steps far over the line into stifling free expression. There's a big difference between wholesale theft of an entire copyrighted work and sharing a reaction GIF on Twitter. The latter is not true infringement in the spirit of the law, it is a part of the way we communicate online today. But that nuance is lost on the EU CD.
Since the Article 13 makes platform holders liable by default, they'd almost certainly exercise an abundance of caution, leading to plentiful false positives -- users' posts being wrongly censored. This can already be seen in YouTube's ContentID system, which scans uploaded videos after the fact and allows rights holders to either take down or siphon money from videos using their content. Often ContentID enables wealthy rights holders to monetize the transformative work of smaller YouTubers, or block such works entirely on the basis of a few seconds of infringing footage. We can expect more of this if the EU CD comes into force -- particularly if a new, even more draconian scanning system needs to approve videos and images from European creators before they go live.
It's also not hard to imagine how such extreme restrictions on tweets, YouTube videos or Facebook posts could be misused by wealthy rights holders in other ways, such as to censor or suppress criticism.
All of this is to say nothing of smaller social media platforms without the resources to develop their own copyright-scanning megafilter for user-generated content. As with Article 11, the smallest platforms stand to be hurt the most.
Indeed, had something like Article 13 been enacted 15 years ago, it's unlikely Twitter or YouTube would exist in their current form.
All but the largest of news publishers benefit from the visibility and signal-boosting that comes from placement in news aggregators. And all but the largest, wealthiest content creators benefit from the relaxed, common-sense approach to copyright enforcement that pervades social media and video platforms today. Most importantly, society in general and internet culture specifically benefits from healthy free expression on online platforms, unhindered by onerous copyright policing.
If you live in an EU country and wish to stand up for free expression and competition online, you can take action here.
Windows Central Newsletter
Get the best of Windows Central in your inbox, every day!
Back in the day, WWW used to be text-based.
After 30 minutes of research on how to vote if you're from Denmark*, I encountered a few sites mentioning A "bad" EU copyright law, but these articles were from June/July 2018. * The page WinCen redirects to currently only contains options to vote for: Sweden, Germany, Luxemburg, Poland, Belgium and Czechia.
The European Commission (which comes closest to a kind of "government" for the EU and to which each EU member state sends one member) is elected by the national governments of EU member states. The European Parliament is of course directly elected by all EU citizens. As for "usually failed at being a politician in their own country", I assume this can only refer to Nigel Farage, who never even won a teapot in British politics, let alone an election. There is a lot of malicious propaganda out there. I invite anybody to read up on the EU.
What _really_ happens is that national courts (!) refer cases on EU Law to the ECJ for interpretation. Upon a decision, the national courts then implement the decision that they asked for. I know, the Daily Mail, Sun and consorts regularly publish stories of the ECJ allegedly meddling in UK law, but it's not true. Consider that the same newspapers recently also called judges on the UK Supreme Court "enemies of the people". In any way: Lee (forgive me for assuming you're British), I won't explain the minutiae of the EU further to you. All I'm saying to everybody else here is this: If you read slanderous propaganda about the EU ("dictatorship", "plutocracy", etc.), don't believe it. If in doubt, check it out yourselves.
I am actually very positive towards the new EU laws, as journalism (and therefor democracy) has suffered immensely in the era of social media news. Clickbait, Fake News (no not Trumps fake news) and superficial content, has become the defector seller, and thereby the go-to for journalism, in a world where its all about shares and likes. As we (unfortunately) can't get rid of the social media and it's influence on people, news and democracy alike, I welcome a new/different system, that (supposedly) makes sure we can get quality journalism, or at least makes sure that news outlets gets payed no matter how many share or likes they get. It might not be perfect, but it danm sure is better than the status quo.
As much as I use Google and Facebook every day, I can clearly see that their business models are parasitic. In fact, on a website that was once dedicated to Windows Phone/Windows Mobile, I would expect a little more concern about Google's quasi-monopolistic business model. The EU is simply trying to level the playing field. And it's high time somebody did that, because apparently consumers won't.